Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

BigNorseWolf's page

RPG Superstar 2014 Dedicated Voter. FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 19,526 posts (20,266 including aliases). 11 reviews. 4 lists. No wishlists. 22 Pathfinder Society characters. 3 aliases.


1 to 50 of 19,526 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Ok I really have to ask, what character is "ruined" ? It seems that most of those characters will be about level 3-4 with a suboptimal stat allocation.

So at this point they have two choices, either continue on their path to MT or retrain one level, and have slightly less than perfect stat allocations (and not even that if you go Oracle/Sorcerer, or Cleric/Sorcerer with the right bloodline).

That is really not ruined, I recently played with a sorcerer/rogue/arcane trickster and that player had to go through a valley of suck to get there.

It might be quite bad for your proposed concept, but from a mechanical point of view, the character is hardly "ruined".

Well, the plan was to have low spell DC's made up for by having a large number of buff spells available.

A mystic theurge walks into level 7-11 scenarios casting second level spells. That really isn't a viable party member.

Retraining makes a lot of feats and abilities useless, for example the tehurgy feat and the magical knack trait.

The valley of suck for a mytic theurge is most of PFS standard levels.

Shadow Lodge ***

Finlanderboy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Ask for it to be banned. I have yet to see anyone arguing in favor of the tactic, and the campaign has responded to complaints about less egregious problems than this.

until then Play undead heavy scenarios. You need a dc 25 handle animal check to get it to attack unnatural creatures.

Until you train it. It is not hard to train it farther.

A combat trained tiger can't learn any more tricks. Its int of 2 allows it to know 6 tricks, which is the number required for combat training.

There's also technically no rule for replacing tricks... except getting it combat trained, so it can't just drop down to pick up a second attack.

The solution there is to get an untrained tiger and drain it up, but since you can train at max 1 trick per session at level 1, 2 at level 2 etc, you'll be level 3-4 before its fully functional. Before then a tiger that knows attack twice but not "heel" should be more trouble than its worth.

Shadow Lodge ***

Ask for it to be banned. I have yet to see anyone arguing in favor of the tactic, and the campaign has responded to complaints about less egregious problems than this.

until then Play undead heavy scenarios. You need a dc 25 handle animal check to get it to attack unnatural creatures.

Shadow Lodge ***

Brigg wrote:

Okay, please forgive me for missing the boat on this, but I have three questions:

What was the old ruling? (Something about Spell like abilities and mystic theurge?)

Old Ruling: Spell like abilities counted as spellcasting for meeting prestige class requirements. The most common fall out was that aasimar wizards could pick up levels of mystic theurge with a 1 level dip into cleric instead of 3, or vice versa.


What is the new ruling? (That something has a new interpretation?)

Why are people actually upset? (Character build is now borked? )

The new faq ruling is that it only counts if it calls out your spell like ability specifically, ie, if dimensional dervish feat requires dimension door, a dimension door spell like ability is close enough, but any other spell like ability is not.

Shadow Lodge ***

Ross Byers wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
"Inari" wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
John and I discussed grandfathering at length. As John and I both advised in the first thread, this is the decision that the PFS team has made and is what we are going with.
Okay, this is a good answer.
Actually, it does not answer the OP at all. The question was "Why was this decision made?". Saying that it was made after discussion and that it won't change does NOT answer "Why".
"It's not changing" is a perfectly adequate response when providing a reason why is just going to get argued with. (Even if the OP isn't just fishing for something to argue with, that won't stop the nerdrage brigade from stopping in.)

Peoples characters are stuck halfway through the process of becoming mystic theurges, leaving them somewhere between suboptimal to useless.

Of course they're going to try to change peoples minds about this decision.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jayson MF Kip wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Hosteling seems overpriced to me. I LOVE the flavor/effect of your companion becoming heraldry, but 7.5 k buys you a LOT of scrolls of carry companion before you break even.

Doesn't help a Cavalier much.

It does. A VERY overlooked option in pfs is to buy an item, hand it to a party member and say "hey, can you use this for me?" The spell is on nearly every spell list. It would be very rare to have a party with no one that could cast it natively or VIA UMD. Its why a monks first purchase should be a wand of mage armor even if they have the UMD score of a bookend.

Shadow Lodge ***

Exguardi wrote:
I understand this. Here is what I am unclear on. This FAQ that I referenced is from the Advanced Player's Guide, not the Advanced Race Guide. This FAQ does NOT say that half-orcs and half-elves are allowed to take feats from their parent races. It says "favored class bonuses, archetypes, traits, and so on." I'm aware that in a home game "so on" would obviously include feats unless the GM explicitly says otherwise, but in the context of PFS play I have had issues in the past with any ruling that did not use INCREDIBLY specific language.

I believe the faq amounts to "You count as human" , which would let you extent the so forth pretty much into infinity.

Shadow Lodge

Komoda wrote:
So I guess you also would not allow someone to 5' Step and mount?

I think i would. I don't think that 5 feet prevents all movement the way movement prevents a 5 foot step.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hosteling seems overpriced to me. I LOVE the flavor/effect of your companion becoming heraldry, but 7.5 k buys you a LOT of scrolls of carry companion before you break even.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

People used crepuscular: they is they'd go to bed a bit after sun down, wake up in the middle of the night, and then go back to sleep.


Zeplins and derigibles used to be THE huge thing. The spire on the empire state building was a hook for derigibles.

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

"I'm out. Our play styles are too different, i'm going to try to find a more compatible group. Happy gaming"

and then DO NOT ANSWER the emails if they look even the least bit recriminating. Just hit delete without opening them.

Let me break down why this is important.

1) Be clear you're leaving.

2) Do. not. blame. anyone. Don't accuse them of stormwinding, playing wrong, being jerks, stealing your cheetos.. No. blame. Anywhere.

3) Wish them well. They are still human beings. Playing a game a different way doesn't make them a terrible person. They're still people. If you HAVE to hurt people it should be for a better reason than to make yourself feel better.

Shadow Lodge

Pondering that build I'm not happy with it. Step up is very neccesary and comes in late. Could use more static damage. I'm thinking of throwing some unarmed fighter in there. It costs me pounce, but i don't get that till level 11 anyway.

Shadow Lodge ***

Michael Hallet wrote:
Personally I can't see how a CN PC functions for long in a group with a motto of "Explore. Report. COOPERATE."

By living up to the explore part by diving into things no sane person would even think to look in and doing the report in interpretive dance format.

Shadow Lodge ***

Codanous wrote:

I added my responses for 5 of my active characters.

The tidbit I found most interesting was the amount of Chaotic Neutral members of the Sovereign Court. There were a fair amount more than I thought.

Most sovereign court members are taldans that crossed over. If you're a decadent self serving noble that just wants to maintain their position CN is a perfect alignment fit.

Shadow Lodge ***

So if the master of many styles monk was banned tomorrow?

Shadow Lodge

It depends on the weapon. If myself and my small fast friend use fencing foils, I'm dead. If I'm whipping around a claymore i can swing one handed that he can barely lift, he's dead.

The game assumes two things:

Knights in armor whacking away at each other and

a hit being an effective hit.

With that in mind strength is the right choice. Trying to aim for the eyeslit against a moving opponent who has his own sword to parry with is such a one in a million shot that you don't model for it. That means you need to swing hard enough to hurt someone through what they're wearing

Shadow Lodge ***

This one looks amazing. Cant wait to run it, and all the monsters are finally in it!

Shadow Lodge

16 people marked this as a favorite.

Step one. Buy Elixir of sex shifting

Step 2: Lable it "Potion of Invisibility". Label and inventory all your other potions noting how a few seem to go missing.

Step 3. Keep strait face.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"I'm out. Our play styles are too different, i'm going to try to find a more compatible group. Happy gaming"

and then DO NOT ANSWER the emails if they look even the least bit recriminating. Just hit delete without opening them.

Shadow Lodge ***

Exguardi wrote:
Hey, man, I don't know, it was my first game of Pathfinder.

Chuckle. No biggie. Thats why i whapped paizo with a thesaurus, not you. That confuses the heck out of everyone.

The good news is that level 1 characters are infinitely chanable until they're played at level 2. So you should have 3 or so games to "kick the tires" a bit.

I took the Vestigial Arms discovery twice because I thought it would look cool, paid no attention to my stats at all because I read how bombs works, went "this touch AC thing seems swell!" and then got my GM to okay me making a day's progress on crafting potions if I used my bottom two arms to continually brew potions while dungeon-delving, no matter what was going on, because science.

Are you sure this was a pathfinder society game? There's pathfinder society which is the organized play for the pathfinder role playing game. Pathfinder Society doesn't let you cract.

But I digress. I'm aware (now, thank you) that you can't take feats from the Advanced Race Guide without actually being the race. But that doesn't quite answer my original question, which was "can half-orcs take Human racial feats which are not from the ARG? Not just Racial Heritage, anything else that happened to exist.

Normally yes, a half orc qualifies as a human for most things.

Shadow Lodge ***

Exguardi wrote:

Hey, my first Pathfinder character was a Human Alchemist who was adopted by gnomes (with the racial trait). I didn't have any mechanical reason for it, I just thought having gnomish parents made for a cool backstory for a Human alchemist.

Plus the Obsessive gnome trait to give +2 to alchemy (easily duplicated elsewhere!) has hilarious drawbacks, like keeping a small collection of weird objects on your person at all times.

Is that a trait with the type of (race) or a racial trait? You can be adopted into a trait trait but not a racial trait. (thwaps paizo with a thesaurus)

There's a businessman gnome trait that does that, but adopted can't get you

Obsessive: Gnomes receive a +2 racial bonus on a Craft or Profession skill of their choice.

Shadow Lodge

Grrr Deboinaire planned build

One of Seven kitsune brothers (mom was NOT happy to find out her husband was a kitsune. Even less happy to give birth to a liter) Grr is the wildchild of the family, which is saying something with that cantankerous bunch. ALthough the runt of the liter he's always the one that eats first... or else.

STR: 6 DEX: 17 CON: 15 INT: 14 WIS: 12 CHA: 13

Religion: Gorum seems to fit.


Rice runner (+1 acrobatics, acrobatics is a class skill)
Poverty stricken +1 survival (because survival comes up a bit and i'd like it back as a class skill)

Level 1 Urban barbarian 1 Weapon finesse/step up*
Level 2 Mouser Swashbuckler 1
Level 3 Urban barbarian 2: Lesser Beast totem Feat: Fox shape
Level 4 Urban barbarian 3:
Level 5 Urban barbarian 4: Superstitious Feat Pirhana strike
Level 6 Urban barbarian 5
Level 7 Urban barbarian 6 : Witchunter. Feat: ERP: auspicious mark.
Level 8 Urban barbarian 7
Level 9 Urban barbarian 8 Beast totem, Feat: extra rage power:disruptive
Level 10 Urban barbarian 9
Level 11 Urban barbarian 10 Greater beast totem

Hmmm. Would it need weapon finesse?

At 1st level, a swashbuckler gains the benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons, and she can use her Charisma score in place of Intelligence as a prerequisite for combat feats. This ability counts as having the Weapon Finesse feat for purposes of meeting feat prerequisites.

hmmm.. Looks like Precise strike answers that for me. That needs to specifically call it out as not working with natural attacks, which wouldn't be neccesary otherwise.

edit: moot point. Claws do B S not B P

Claws and bite both do piercing damage, i just don't know if they're melee weapons by strict raw...

Not as much static damage as I'd like on the claws to deal with DR. Furryborn should get through the DR eventually though, provided i can get at least 1 hp through. If not there's always tripping.

I just noticed that vulpine pounce requires that you go into your kitsune form, so its not good if you want to stay a fox.

Hmmm. Delinqesent glove[s] , so there are two of them. Sounds like it wouldn't help the bite.

Shadow Lodge ***

Your character is going to have some interesting family reunions.

Shadow Lodge

Scott Willhelm wrote:
I am not forcing an opinion on the rest of you. I am playing the game the way I understand it, and I think that is just swell. I am giving advice along those lines. My position has nothing to do with its popularity, but my understanding of the rules, which I am convinced is completely valid and legal. All I am saying is that we should be allowed to play the game within the rules, and that discriminating against someone's style is wrong, even if it is in the minority.

Its not your style that's being discriminated against.

Everyone at the table plays by the same rules. You do not get to play existentialism where you act according to the rules as you think they are. Yes, the dm in pfs is bound by the rules but he is NOT bound by the rules as you read them. The goalpost you are setting is "you cannot absolutely prove me wrong!" when the goalpost you need for that behavior is "I'm absolutely right"

A PFS dm does not have nearly enough time to lay out the diagram for a character this complicated and double check the math. The DM is trusting you, the player, to be fair and honest with your character and you're either violating that trust with a rules reading you've admitted you know is suspect or you're going to have to take a DM thats trying to do last minute preperations for the scenario and dump the headache inducing rules lawyering on him. Neither one is fair to your DM.

Shadow Lodge

You cannot accuse people of hiding their heads in the sand and then complain about someone elses tone.

You cannot equate something that affects the monks fist with something that the monks fist affects. This is the central counter argument that you're not addressing.

The rules of the game are not a spell or effect.

Quoting a rule that does not say what you think it does is not evidence that the rule says what it thinks it does. Its is better evidence that you're wrong than you're right.

You said you would change your mind if shown a monster that took the -5. You've been shown one.

this is the post i was thinking of. It talked about monks then went to two weapon fighting.

Shadow Lodge ***

Were you the DM or the player?

Shadow Lodge

Matthew Downie wrote:
How about a Huge rider on a Colossal mount? They're presumably getting around 15 feet of movement for free...

Im inclined to consider it movement unless you wind up in your mounts space somehow. (riding a big mount, having a very small character etc)

Shadow Lodge

Freehold DM wrote:
I wouldn't call this hateful in the slightest, but it isn't helpful either- throwing centuries of know-your-place-type thought back into the faces of the decendents(who certainly benefited from it in earlier points of their life and continue to do so in the long run, but are not necessarily responsible for it) provides visercal satisfaction, but doesn't really address anything.

Also, making a very bad argument undercuts your ability to make good ones, especially since discrimination arguments have to rely in no small part on personal experiences. If someone is going to see the manifestation of the zeitgeist in a cheese sandwich I'm going to add a little more salt to their claims that they've experienced discrimination.

Shadow Lodge

Aelryinth wrote:

ten ounces of leathery fury nips the hill giant on the ankle with such precision he topples over, and then tears open his throat with a transcendentally precise and large gash that emits a gout of blood weighing more then he does!

And people wonder why I hate dex to damage.



If we're going to bring physics into this a 50 ton dragon really shouldn't care whether you're a 300 pound dwarf or a 90 pound human wizard, you're just a smear when it hits you.

Shadow Lodge

What kind of message does it send when you get a degree in something and still make less than a waiter to teach it?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its true purpose is to attract knights. Because free range food just tastes better in its own crunchy shell.

Shadow Lodge

MMCJawa wrote:

At both research Universities I have been associated, there have been non tenure track faculty hired to teach courses. Obviously they are not getting rid of the tenure system, but they are trying to cut costs as they raise attendance in basic courses.

Same thing they did with the unions. Let the current members keep their benefits, just don't give out any new ones. No one with any power is fighting you so no one opposes it even though the end is the same: no one with any benefits but you.

Shadow Lodge ***

Sexuality breakdown of some active characters:

Doyle- Human druid Ranked in as asexual. He was voted off the island of hermea which means in his mind he's not fit to have children. Is too shy to make advances at anyone, and gets to flustered to respond to any advances.

Shamus: Gnome cleric of the lantern king. Omni sexual. And I mean omni. Carries around a masterwork paracountes bingo board game with squares such as "male kitsune" "female elf" " ??? ooze"" "male ???" and " ? ???".

Corvus: Drunk tengu inquisitor. I don't think sex has come up at all. He can't tell mammals apart and hasn't seen any tengu.

Fabrizio: Diplomancer/.. erm. Sorcerer. Thinks of himself as strait. Will go the other way "just this once to distract the guards". Will draw the line at bilateral symmetry (once his bird explains those words to him)

Reynard: Kitsune Swashbuckler blend. Strait. May have had one incident at a drunken party or on the qadirian border. Absolutely loves the chase/romance part of things.

Pyrite: Male Aasimar Saurian Shaman druid. A celibate Calistrian .

Flutter: Female druid. (Only female) Mostly strait. Hippy skippy granola type doesn't see why people get all uptight about a natural process.

Argentum: Male scion of humanity mystic theurge (or not, grumble) Very strait. Another hermean. He has 76 grandkids by three wives that he's outlived.

Shadow Lodge ***

Mattastrophic wrote:

It's interesting to see how, as of right now, characters of an asexual nature (14.1%) are more prevalent than characters of a homosexual nature (5.6%).


Probably because its a mixture of

-Sex is just how the DM lures you to death. Avoid.
-Real world asexuality
-My character is a priest that means they can't have sex right?
-Sex is just how the DM lures you to death. Avoid.
-none of these really fit
-Thats a plus what vs. the succubus charm? I'll take that one
-Sex is just how the DM lures you to death. Avoid.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Professor X wrote:
I was pleasantly surprised to find that so many other players think about these things when crafting their characters. I was even more pleasantly surprised to see that the (in-game) Pathfinder Society is such an open, diverse, and inclusive organization.

-In this business if you think inside the box, you'll get shipped home in one

Shadow Lodge

more rules lawyering and rules interpretation philosophy. ohmmmmmm:

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I am doing no such thing.

You are.

You know full well that most people do not agree with your reading of the rule. You in fact, seem to be about the only person that reads it that way. You are advising someone else to read it that way to increase the power of their character and that is munchkining. It is not something to be encouraged especially for a PFS character where the DM keeps changing. You are taking it upon yourself to INTERPRET a rule that you don't think is clear. That isn't your job its the DMs.

I am using the RAW to rules-lawyer a power advantage.

Don't do that in an advice thread. Try that in the rules forums. And above all, do NOT present something you admit you have to aggressively rules lawyer as the one true reading of the text like you have been.

Advising someone to belligerently rules lawyer with one DM is a bad idea. Advising someone to spend very valuable session time trying a very bad argument to increase the power of an already complicated and wonky build is even worse. You may as well go up to the dm and announce "I am a cheese weasel!". Its going to get your entire build a half hour review or, frankly "you're cheating, I can't audit a character this complicated, get off my table". Advising someone to simply do something shady and not even let the dm rule on it is outright cheating.

I am an unapologetic minmaxer.

You've gone past that. I don't normally hold to strict definitions for gaming definitions, but a minmaxer has what it is right in the definition and this isn't it. A minmaxer minimizes penalties for things they don't care about to maximize the benefits, for example a two handed fighter dumping charisma into the toilet to put more points in strength. You dump charisma, nothing bad happens, your strength, hit, and damge go up. No muss no fuss no interpretation required.

This is attempting to loophole a rather strained reading of the words into a power advantage. I call that munchkining. Thats the nice word for it.

Furthermore, the first thing I do when I sit down at a PFS table is ask the other characters

Teamwork is cool, but telling people that they can do X is vastly different than telling them that the dm might let them do x, which is vastly differenf from "I think they can do X but 99 percent of people don't"

I am not hiding my behavior nor looking for forgiveness. If that means you don't like my advice, don't follow it.

Which means it falls to other people to put out the giant warning sign that you're trying something underhanded.


, my advice is clearly not out of place in a thread with

the title of this thread wrote:

GMs will hate you

I disagree. If your build is making the dm hate you that is the time where you need EVERY I dotted, T crossed, and need to be firmly within both the raw and the rai. Because annoying the dm is a good way to get audited and if i caught you adding natural attacks on an argument THAT bad I'd think you were cheating.

Do you really not understand that to be an evidence-backed argument?

Its not an evidence based argument. It is an argument based argument. There is a difference between quoting a section from the rules and showing that it says what you think it does.

I have already repeatedly explained the flaw in your argument. You don't address that. Effects that enhance the unarmed strike are not necessarily things that the unarmed strike affects. A--> B does not mean that B--->A. Chocholate causes happiness, therefore happiness causes chocholate.

Without biting, Chewy a toothy half orc monks kick to the head does

+4 kick for (1d6+4) damage.

With biting Chewy's kick to the head does

+4/-1 for (1d6+4)/(1d3+2)-2 damage

Note that Chewy's kick is not affected by the bite: its the same either way, the bite is affected by the kick. Since the bite doesn't affect the kick at all, it is not a spell or effect that enhances unarmed strikes. It does nothing to unarmed strikes at all, so they don't interact.

By what argument does the bite fall into a category of things that affect unarmed strikes?


Why do developer examples of mixing natural attacks and monk strikes work as if the monk strikes were manufactured weapons?

Show me!

Unarmed strikes use the rules for manufactured weapons.

Show me a character build or a monster produced by Paizo Publishing where a Monk mixes Unarmed Strikes and Natural Attacks and takes a -5 on his Natural Attacks. Cite chapter and verse. Link to it. If you can give that to me in a Paizo Pathfinder rules book, an FAQ, the Errata, or an Offical Rules Post, and I will admit that I am wrong and you are right.

Still looking for the example. The example i thought i had used twf, not flurry. Still digging.

You made a lot of other arguments, but if you can give me such a strong counter-example, then that is the only one you needed to make. I have a lot more to say--and I intend to say it--but not if you have evidence like that.

I am only ever trying to arrive at the truth and speak the truth, never to cover, to create nor to change the truth.

There's a huge problem with this. I call it the assumption of perfection in rules argumentation. You're assuming that since the rules are perfectly clear and non contradictory that any argument you can make for a position means that the position must be THE right one. If that were possible to do in the english language lawyers were out of business. The same words can have multiple meanings and interpretations even when you don't screw it up yourself. You can't just say "this one argument points this way" so thats the end of it, you have to consider whats the strongest argument.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

[flight of dragons]Because gold is a soft metal to sleep on, and is less flammable than a straw mattress if you happen to snore. [/flight of dragons]

Shadow Lodge

meepothegreat wrote:
The feat would make it even harder to cast spells, use command word items, or other such actions requiring speaking. As to the use of a strangler feat on a Wonder Woman character...come on it's like the only lasso specific feat! Honestly I would think at any level, using what I rolled for their touch ac had to be applied to their cmd? I'd never affect certain people.

If I was going to change anything written via RAI I would say that the opposed strength check to keep someone from moving is a combat manuver check, and that in the conversion from 3.5 to pathfinder this item got overlooked when they changed all of the opposed checks into CMB vs CMD checks.

So does this feat now cause the target to make two different checks to cast spells with verbal components

One check is more than enough. Its higher than the regular entangled dc and high enough that they need a nat 20 to make the check if they can even make it at all.

Shadow Lodge ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The dm uses their cast as a sign in sheet.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How does this actually affect me?

Shadow Lodge ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

No wonder you people keep running out of scenarios...

Shadow Lodge ***

As long as they're in the scenario SOMEWHERE i'm happy.

Shadow Lodge ***

The Fourth Horseman wrote:

Sounds to me from all of this that the BEST way to fix all this is to ramp up content production.

I know that's a tall order. Is it a staff volume issue? Money? I know you guys can't answer that, I'm just thinking out loud.

If it helps, I'd pay a little more for scenarios if it meant more quality scenario production in a season.

They've said before that the bottleneck is on the editing/layout side of things/ PFS doesn't have its own it has to go through the rest of paizo and they're BUSY

Shadow Lodge

Possibly, but PFS tries not to make rules clarifications for non pfs rulings.

Shadow Lodge ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

Season 7 is Year of the Serpent.

erm.. what? I thought it was year of the admantine greatsword.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

50 shades of red white and blue?

Given that the DC is "why not just make it impossible" levels of ridiculous, you can just say she's tying the persons mouth shut rather than choking them.

Shadow Lodge

Could you name the feat? That would help.

A lasso works like a net.

a net says

If you control the trailing rope by succeeding on an opposed Strength check while holding it, the entangled creature can move only within the limits that the rope allows. If the entangled creature attempts to cast a spell, it must make a concentration check with a DC of 15 + the spell's level or be unable to cast the spell.

Thats the only thing i can think of without knowing the feat.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:


There's a long way between not quite ready for college English classes and "Can't read".

What fancy pants colleges are YOU getting into? :)

Shadow Lodge ***

Lou Diamond wrote:

I think That the PFS team made a mistake taking Teifling and AAsamir away

neither race is game breaking in anyway. I oppose boons for races because it discriminates Against those of us who cannot afford to go to conventions.

AN easy way to balance outsider races would be to include all of them but
require them to have 4 chronicles for levels 1 and 2.

The aasimar and tieflings themselves were just good, but the bloodlines effectively turned the two races into 14, an dwere the only way to get some stat combinations. They were ousted for a good reason: half the new characters were one or the other.

Shadow Lodge

Andy Ferguson wrote:
What about feral combat training and monk levels?

Won't work with urban barbarian, but doesn't help much. I think you can flurry with a bite but not flurry and use natural attacks. Also doesn't work with barbarian.

Flurrying with one natural attack?

Thats doable.

Is there any way to make enhancing on natural cheaper then enhancing all of them?

That robe thing in ultimate equipment... *dig dig digs*


Furryborn on multiple natural attacks will get you a higher bonus.

1 to 50 of 19,526 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.